Ex Parte Breed

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 12, 2011

11380574 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 12, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/380,574 04/27/2006 David S. Breed ATI-412 2808
22846 7590 09/12/2011
BRIAN ROFFE, ESQ
8170 McCormick Boulevard, Suite 223
Skokie, IL 60076-2914
EXAMINER
HUNNINGS, TRAVIS R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2011 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte DAVID S. BREED
_____________

Appeal 2009-011721
Application 11/380,574
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF and CARLA M. KRIVAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 31.
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed a system for monitoring transportation
assets, such as shipping containers, and the contents of the assets See
Specification page 1. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and
reproduced below:
Appeal 2009-011721
Application 11/380,574
2

1. An asset including an arrangement for monitoring the
asset and an interior of the asset into which contents are selectively
placed and removed, comprising:
a location determining system arranged at least in part on the
asset, said location determining system being arranged to determine
the location of the asset; and
an interior sensor and communication system arranged on the
asset, said interior sensor and communication system being arranged
to obtain data about and specific to any contents in the interior of the
asset such that independent data is obtained for each of a plurality of
different contents, said interior sensor and communication system
being arranged to transmit the obtained data about the contents in the
interior of the asset and the location of the asset,
said interior sensor and communication system comprising a
transmitter and receiver for communicating directly with a wireless
Internet service provider (ISP) such that the obtained data about the
contents in the interior of the asset and the location of the asset is
available to a user having access to the Internet.

REFERENCE
UEDA US 4,999,614 Mar. 12, 1991
WOOLLEY US 959,568 Sep. 28, 1999
WELLES US 5,691,980 Nov. 25, 1997
MAY US 6,925,335 Aug. 2, 2005
SHOFIELD US 2005/0200700 A1 Sep. 15, 2005

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4, 8, 10 through 25, 28,
30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wells in
view of May and Woolley. Answer 4-9.1

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
March 5, 2009.
Appeal 2009-011721
Application 11/380,574
3

The Examiner has rejected claims 5 through 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wells in view of May, Woolley and
Ueda. Answer 9-10.
The Examiner has rejected claims 26, 27, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wells in view of May, Woolley and
Schofield. Answer 10 and 11.

ISSUES
Claims 1 through 3, 8, 10, 14, through 17, 20 through 22, 24, 25, and
30.
Appellant argues on pages 4 through 7 of the Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims is in error. 2 These arguments present
us with the following issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of the references teaches providing Internet based access to
data relating to the contents in the interior of an asset as well as the location
of the asset?
Claims 4 and 13.
Appellant argues on pages 7 and 8 of the Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims is in error. These arguments present us with the
following issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of the
references teaches a triggering device arranged to direct an interior sensor to
obtain data about the contents present in the interior of the asset when such
an event is detected?

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated August 19,
2008, and Reply Brief dated April 21, 2009.
Appeal 2009-011721
Application 11/380,574
4

Claims 18 and 31.
Appellant argues on pages 8 and 9 of the Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims is in error. These arguments present us with the
following issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of the
references teaches a user initiating communications to the asset to either
adjust the operating parameters or initiate a data gathering stage?

Claim 19.
Appellant argues on page 9 of the Brief that the Examiner’s rejection
of this claim is in error. These arguments present us with roughly the same
issue as claims 4 and 13.

Claims 23 and 28.
Appellant argues on pages 9 and 10 of the Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims is in error. These arguments present us with the
same issue as claims 4 and 13.

Claims 5 through 7 and 9.
Appellant argues on page 10 and 11 of the Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims is in error. These arguments present us with the
issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Welles, May
Woolley and Ueda teach when an event is detected, obtaining an infrared
image and transmitting the image?

Claims 26, 27, and 29
Appellant argues on page 11 and 12 of the Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims is in error. These arguments present us with the
Appeal 2009-011721
Application 11/380,574
5

issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Welles, May
Wooly and Schofield teach when an event is detected, obtaining an infrared
image and transmitting the image?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1 through 3, 8, 10, 14, through 17, 20 through 22, 24, 25 and
30.
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of the
references teaches providing Internet based access to data relating to the
contents in the interior of an asset as well as the location of the asset. The
Examiner provides a comprehensive response on pages 11 through 14 of the
Answer.
Appellant argues on page 5 on the Brief, that the combination of
Wells and May does not teaching using the Internet to provide access to data
specific to the content of the asset. Further, the Appellant argues that while
Woolley’s system obtains data about the contents of assets, Woolley does
not disclose using the Internet to transmit data. Brief 5. Appellant asserts
that the type of data related to the operability of the asset and data
concerning the contents of the asset are fundamentally different and as such
would not be combined. Brief 6. Thus, Appellant concludes that the
combination of the art does not teach providing Internet based access to
access data relating to the contents in the interior of the asset as well as the
location of the asset. Brief 6 .
We are not persuaded by this argument, as the evidence does not
support the Appellant’s conclusion and there is ample evidence to support
Appeal 2009-011721
Application 11/380,574
6

the Examiner’s finding. In addition to the citations provided by the
Examiner, we note that Woolley discloses use of the Internet to transmit data
concerning location and contents in the interior of an asset. See Figure 63,
which illustrates communication between operations center 13 and carrier
(item 3004) and shipper/receiver (item 3002). See also column 56, lines 17-
25, which discusses the shipper, buyer or carrier, interrogating the system to
determine location of an asset and verify that the materials are on board
(items internal to the asset). We note further that May’s web page display,
shown in Figure 6a, which is transmitted over the Internet, contains data
identifying the location of the asset and operating status.
As Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’ rejection of representative claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 3, 8, 10, 14, through 17, 20 through 22, 24, 25,
and 30.

Claims 4 and 13.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of the
references teaches a triggering device arranged to direct the interior sensor to
obtain data about the contents present in the interior of the asset when such
an event is detected.
On page 6 of the Answer, the Examiner finds that it is well known
that when a sensor is triggered an alert is recorded, and as such the claimed
triggering device is obvious. As an example, the Examiner relies upon the
motion sensor as tripping an alert. Answer 6, 14. Appellant’s arguments
focus on the references lacking a teaching of the motion sensor triggering
Appeal 2009-011721
Application 11/380,574
7

the interior sensor to obtain and communicate information about the contents
in the interior of the asset. Brief 7-8. While we concur with Appellant that
there is minimal evidence that a motion sensor triggers the interior sensor as
claimed, we nonetheless find ample evidence to support the Examiner’s
finding that is well known that when a sensor is triggered, data about the
asset is gathered. See, for example, Woolley’s disclosure of a detector on an
asset, which when tampered with, triggers a module that interrogates the tags
on items inside the asset to verify the existence of each tag associated with
articles inside the asset. Col. 64, ll. 39-60. Thus, we find that the evidence
supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of the references
teaches a triggering device arranged to direct the interior sensor to obtain
data about the contents present in the interior of the asset when such an
event is detected. As Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 13.

Claims 18 and 31.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant’s
conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of the
references teaches the user initiating communications to the asset to adjust
the operating parameters However, we disagree with Appellant that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of the references teaches the
user directing communication to the asset to initiate a data gathering stage.
The Examiner finds that May teaches the ability to remotely issue
commands to the asset. Answer 16. We also note that, as discussed above
with respect to claim 1, Woolley discloses that a user can, via the Internet,
verify the contents of the container, (i.e. the user issues a command to the
Appeal 2009-011721
Application 11/380,574
8

asset to verify the materials aboard). Col. 56, ll. 17-24. We find that these
commands amount to the user initiating a data gathering stage, and as such
teach the limitations of claim 31. However, we do not find that these
commands involve adjusting an operating parameter as recited in claim 18.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31 but do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.

Claim 19
As discussed above, Appellant’s arguments directed to this claim
present us with roughly the same issue as discussed with respect to claim 4,
the difference being that claim 19 recites data gathering is performed after a
predetermined event. This argument is not persuasive. As discussed above
with respect to claim 4, we find Woolley teaches that a determination that a
detector is tampered with triggers the interrogation of the tags on items
inside the asset. Thus, Woolley teaches that the interrogation of the tags
occurs only after the determination that a tag is tampered with. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19.

Claims 23 and 28.
As discussed above, Appellant’s arguments directed to this claim
present us with the same issue as discussed with respect to claim 4. As
discussed with respect to claim 4, Appellant’s arguments directed to this
issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Accordingly, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23 and
28.

Appeal 2009-011721
Application 11/380,574
9

Claims 5 through 7 and 9.
We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant’s
conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Welles,
May, Woolley, and Ueda teach obtaining an infrared image and transmitting
the image when an event is detected. The Examiner finds that Ueda teaches
an infrared camera for monitoring an area. Answer 17. The Examiner
reasons that the example of recording information when a motion sensor is
tripped, as discussed with respect to claim 4, coupled with a camera would
render obvious the sending of images, as it would give the user additional
information. Answer 17. We disagree with the Examiner’s reasoning with
respect to the rejection of claim 5. As discussed with respect to claim 4, we
find minimal evidence to support the Examiner’s example of using a motion
sensor to trigger an interior sensor. We also note that no evidence has been
presented to suggest using an infrared camera with Woolley’s teaching of
detecting tampering and interrogating the tags. Accordingly we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5, or claim 6, which recites a
similar limitation directed to an infrared image.
However, we note that claims 7 and 9 do not recite limitations
directed to obtaining an infrared image. Thus, Appellant’s arguments are
not commensurate in scope with the limitations of dependent claims 7 and 9,
and we sustain the rejections of these claims for the same reasons discussed
with respect to claim 1, the claim from which they depend.

Appeal 2009-011721
Application 11/380,574
10

Claims 26, 27 and 29.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant’s
conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Welles, May, Woolley, and Schofield teach obtaining an infrared image and
transmitting the image when an event is detected. The Examiner’s rationale
for rejecting these claims is similar to that discussed above with respect to
claim 5, except relying upon Schofield to teach the infrared camera instead
of Ueda. As discussed above, we disagree with this rationale. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26, 27 and 29, which
all recite similar limitations directed to an infrared image.

SUMMARY
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 5, 6, 18, 26, 27, and 29. However, Appellant’s
arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1 through 4, 7 through 17, 19 through 25, 28, 30 and 31.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 31 is affirmed
in part.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
ke